A. misunderstanding of facts: The Defendant did not have the intention to acquire by deceit when borrowing five million won as stated in the facts charged from the victim.

B. Unreasonable sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (one million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime, insofar as the defendant does not make a confession. The criminal intent is sufficient, not conclusive intention, but dolusent intent. In the civil monetary lending relationship, the criminal intent of the defraudation of the borrowed money can not be immediately recognized with the non-performance of obligation in the civil monetary lending relationship. However, if the defendant borrowed money by pretending as if he did not have the intention of full repayment or even though he did not have the ability to make a repayment within

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do18139 Decided May 13, 201). B.

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, since the defendant could fully recognize the fact that he borrowed five million won from the victim due to the criminal intent of defraudation of the horses, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

① Around August 25, 2011, the Defendant borrowed five million won from the victim, and the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant would return the principal and interest of the loan by December 30, 201, as the rent acquired by leasing the real estate owned by the Defendant.”

② The Defendant paid 40,000 won interest from the above borrowing date to the above maturity date, and paid 200,000 won as interest only after July 2015 when the Defendant stated that the Defendant would file a complaint against the victim by not paying the principal and interest of the loan even after the maturity date.

(3) The defendant shall undertake real estate from the above borrowing date to 2015.